David Walliams Knighthood?

tim_wand

David Walliams what price a knighthood in the new years honours?

He must have raised more money for charity now than Botham, Probably smoked less dobey and is a media darling.

Do you have to go up in order i,e OBE MBE CBE then KBE or do you have to wait behind Steven Fry if your a slightly effiminate luvvie.

Yes I know I probably got the order of merit ranking wrong.

Id put money on at least an MBE this new year.

Stewie Griffin

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

nadir

i get kinda irritated by all these media charity luvvies, yeah they raise money for charity, but they also raise their own profile and many a media career has been, if not founded upon, then maintained by their constant exposure to us as wonderful geezers, the ooh look what they are doing to raise money for the less privilledged factor. so that keeps their profile high in the public eye and makes them hotter property with the other luvvies who are commissioning the next tv series, record deal, papparazzi or whatever.
i ultimately regard them as doing nothing more than touting for new business (for themselves) and more lucrative contracts.
i also find it fairly nauseating that groups of multi millionaire media luvvies are going around demanding that much less well off people sponsor them for charitable acts. i mean if you look at the total wealth of all those who played in live aid 9for example), they could probably have raised more than the public gave, if individually they had all just donated a couple of per cent of their wealth to the charitable cause they were performing for, and they could have spared the rest of us from having to listen to their sanctimonious drivel, and spent more time with their accountants devising ever greater and more astonishing tax avoiding wheezes, ala bono.

pauldavid

nadir wrote:

i get kinda irritated by all these media charity luvvies, yeah they raise money for charity, but they also raise their own profile and many a media career has been, if not founded upon, then maintained by their constant exposure to us as wonderful geezers, the ooh look what they are doing to raise money for the less privilledged factor. so that keeps their profile high in the public eye and makes them hotter property with the other luvvies who are commissioning the next tv series, record deal, papparazzi or whatever.
i ultimately regard them as doing nothing more than touting for new business (for themselves) and more lucrative contracts.
i also find it fairly nauseating that groups of multi millionaire media luvvies are going around demanding that much less well off people sponsor them for charitable acts. i mean if you look at the total wealth of all those who played in live aid 9for example), they could probably have raised more than the public gave, if individually they had all just donated a couple of per cent of their wealth to the charitable cause they were performing for, and they could have spared the rest of us from having to listen to their sanctimonious drivel, and spent more time with their accountants devising ever greater and more astonishing tax avoiding wheezes, ala bono.

Well said that man, thought it was just me that felt like this. Everywhere you look there is some celebrity or other telling us why we should give to their charity of choice. Unfortunately I don't earn squillions for part time work on the gogglebox and consequently haven't got anything to give away.

When I have any cash that isn't accounted for in some way I will find the charity that siuts me so jog on with your guilt trip stories give money if you want to but don't bother me anymore.

Rant over

DF33

I don't give money to any charity. Too much wastage,

So I give my time instead. That way I know it goes directly to where it's needed. 100% of it.

I walk dogs for the dogs trust and I give time to Age Concern to help out.

I do this every week as well as having a full time job.

If I add up the time spent over the years I am certain it comes to more, pro rata, of my time than Mr Walliams.

I don't want. ask for, or expect to receive any honours.

So why should He or any of the self promoting celebs get them?

It's easy to do sexy high profile charity work when you can fit it in to a part time celeb life style, ie do it when scheduled between contracts, therefore in his case have the luxury of a virtual period of full time professional athlete with all the trimmings.

Try doing it week in week out, without the sexiness and adulation whilst holding down a full time job and normal income.

So either turn down any honours Mr Walliams and your cronies ,thereby earning a little respect from some of us, or pass on the virus you have so we can all throw up at your self promoting and effin' eff off.

DF33

I don't give money to any charity. Too much wastage,

So I give my time instead. That way I know it goes directly to where it's needed. 100% of it.

I walk dogs for the dogs trust and I give time to Age Concern to help out.

I do this every week as well as having a full time job.

If I add up the time spent over the years I am certain it comes to more, pro rata, of my time than Mr Walliams.

I don't want. ask for, or expect to receive any honours.

So why should He or any of the self promoting celebs get them?

It's easy to do sexy high profile charity work when you can fit it in to a part time celeb life style, ie do it when scheduled between contracts, therefore in his case have the luxury of a virtual period of full time professional athlete with all the trimmings.

Try doing it week in week out, without the sexiness and adulation whilst holding down a full time job and normal income.

So either turn down any honours Mr Walliams and your cronies ,thereby earning a little respect from some of us, or pass on the virus you have so we can all throw up at your self promoting and effin' eff off.

Keith1983

So what you mostly seem to be saying is that if someone earns lots of money then they shouldn't do charity work? Also when it comes to stirring up piblicity about the charities celebrities support it can be about more than getting you to part with your hard earned. Raising awareness of issues that charities support can be a massive step towards addressing those issues over the long term and getting a real solution in place. I would love to have some of the opportunities to do some of the things celebrities have done for charity (trecking through the desert, heading to the north pole etc), but who is going to tune in to watch me do it? Absolutely nobody, so whilst they are undoubtedly raising their own profile, who cares if they're raising money for deserving charities then that's the important thing and long may it continue!

inkyfingers

I'm not a fan of his work but to be fair to Walliams, if he wanted to raise his own profile there are easier ways to do it than swimming the length of the Thames dodging floaters. It was a hell of an undertaking and by the sounds of it he suffered like a dog whilst raising a shit load of money. I think there are a lot of people far more worthy of scorn than him.

inkyfingers

DF33 wrote:

I don't give money to any charity. Too much wastage,

It's certainly true that some charities spend their money better than others but you shouldn't tar them all with the same brush. In my professional life I work with charities on a daily basis and some of them do a fantastic job on an absolute shoestring and i'd be happy to donate my money to them. In my experience it's the big national charities that waste money, the smaller local charities (hospices etc) are generally pretty well run and staffed by people who are passionate rather than just professional fundraisers - hence they are the ones who i donate and fundraise for.

shm_uk

what price a knighthood in the new years honours?

These honours are handed out far to readily these days.

Well done Mr Walliams though. Seems a very humble and unassuming guy.

gilesjuk

nadir wrote:

i get kinda irritated by all these media charity luvvies, yeah they raise money for charity, but they also raise their own profile and many a media career has been,.

Hence the phrase "the best charity is given anonymously".

Eric Cartman

Lucky bastard is banging Lara Stone, that is worth more than a knighthood

ollyridesfirst

To be fair to him, as has been stated, there are easier ways to raise your own profile.

It's the "fake" celebs (Katie Price anyone) who annoy me. At least he does things that are hard work! I'm one that won't give to the national charities for the reason stated above, they do waste a lot of money. But i'll give to the local charities, and it's always kids first in my opinion....look after them as they have no way of looking after themselves!

BigG67

tim wand wrote:

David Walliams what price a knighthood in the new years honours?

He must have raised more money for charity now than Botham, Probably smoked less dobey and is a media darling.

Do you have to go up in order i,e OBE MBE CBE then KBE or do you have to wait behind Steven Fry if your a slightly effiminate luvvie.

Yes I know I probably got the order of merit ranking wrong.

Id put money on at least an MBE this new year.

You can go straight to Knighthood or even House of Lords without running throught the rankings.

Nairnster

Agree with some of the comments here, espeically the one of mega rich celebs asking us to donate.

As an example, who donates more:

A kid who saves his entire pocket money for a month (e.g £10) and gives it to Children in Need

Or

A footballer who donates £20,000 (but earns £120,000 per week)

Its all relative, and the kid has made more of a sacrifice.


I would agree though, that celebrities do have a part to play doing charity work, as it helps raise the profile of issues and charities that people may otherwise ignore or not be aware of. If them doing something, then encourages 'mere mortals' to donate as well, then its achieved its aim.


As for getting an honour? GTF as far as I am concerned. They ARE handed out like flyers nowadays, and so those who do actually deserve them, find their honour is devalued because some grinning media harlot has been given the same award.

Bozman

If Labour were still at no10, he would've been knighted before he had chance to dry off!

Open a door for an old dear a few years ago and you'd get your picture on the front of the Sunday Times mag, brunch at No10 and a knighthood.

BigJimmyB

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

I was trying to think of the word to reply to this.

You wrote them for me.

Thanks Stewie!

rolf_f

He's challenging himself which is great (though not really any different to what plenty of people do on this forum) and he is encouraging money to go to a good cause.

On the other hand, he is preposterously overpaid and shouldn't need to be that busy - this sort of thing is what we should expect of celebs as a matter of course. Awards just imply it is more special than it really is.

PS Eddie Izzards marathons were far more impressive IMO!

inkyfingers

Rolf F wrote:

On the other hand, he is preposterously overpaid and shouldn't need to be that busy - this sort of thing is what we should expect of celebs as a matter of course. Awards just imply it is more special than it really is.

That's your opinion, but if someone was prepared to pay you loads of money just to wheel out a few tired catchphrarses then are you honestly going to tell me you wouldn't do it? It really irks me when people say that such and such is overpaid, no, he is paid what his paymasters think he's worth. If 8 million people tune in to little britain on the BBC then they'd argue he's worth it. It's like football fans that moan that players are overpaid yet they continue to buy replica shirts, attend matches or pay for a sky sports subscription.

Rolf F wrote:

PS Eddie Izzards marathons were far more impressive IMO!

To market these things the challenge has to be A: Hard - which swimming 140 miles most certainly is, whether or not it's harder than running a series of marathons is a bit of a moot point. B: It has to be unique, which once again this is.

Not sure why people are knocking him, when you compare his efforts to some of the more pathetic celebrity charity events - such as the epic sport relief bike ride last year where they each cyclist just a handful of miles a day or the kilamjaro climb which was basically celebrity let's walk up a hill with a load of poor people carrying all our stuff. Plus he gets my respect for being prepared to swim in the Thames - knowing what ends up in there I wouldn't go in there unless I was in a sealed divers suit!

verylonglegs

I'd happily pay £50 to charity if he promised to never bother us with his 'comedy' again.

Redhog14

OK IMO:

Walliams/Izzard do something few people can do and get a bit of exposure for raising money the hard way and their career benfits from it

Fearne Cotton/ Chris Moyles - ride a bike for a while or walk up a hill, something most people could achieve if they actually tried.

I admire the first ones 10/10 the next lot 5/10 mainly because I could walk up that hill and I can ride my bike (quite far actually).

If either group inspire or shame others into doing more than they would normally, where is the harm? They have raised some money and perhaps had a knock effect at a less publicised level and therefore raosed some more. Better than Jordan complaining that her latest knob of a boyfriend isn't up to the job and boo hoo don't you know I've a kid with a handicap etc etc

verylonglegs

I try not to comment on worthiness of events after I got a load of grief for suggesting to a girl at work who, in her mid-twenties, was walking the 5km for Race for Life and asking for sponsorship, that she should at least run a bit of it as my 66yr old mother walks further than that with the dog every day. Didn't go down well...apparently I was missing the point!

Redhog14

verylonglegs wrote:

I try not to comment on worthiness of events after I got a load of grief for suggesting to a girl at work who, in her mid-twenties, was walking the 5km for Race for Life and asking for sponsorship, that she should at least run a bit of it as my 66yr old mother walks further than that with the dog every day. Didn't go down well...apparently I was missing the point!

Love it!

A few years ago when friends and I decided to do the 3 peaks in 24hrs. We hired a van etc did all our own logistics and driving at our own cost. When I went asking for sponsorship people just gave me the money there and then which I felt defeated the case for doing so as we may not complete it, I was always brought up with the idea that an incentive was offered for completing the challenge but these days you just hand over the money it seems.

SO where do we all stand on the "My sponsorship of your charity event is just a way of you getting a free holiday?"

bornagainbiker

I cannot believe some of the mealymouthed comments on here.

Regardless of what you think of him ( how many of you have actually met him?)
what he achieved was a fantastic undertaking. Having swam in competitions and trained into my mid teens I have an idea just how bloody knackering and mentally draining it is. How many of the whingers here have attempted more than 10 lengths of the local pool before giving up?!

All said and done I do think a knighthood is a bit OTT.

I also sponsored him WELL DONE Mr Walliams.

the_spooks

The part I hate is that knighthoods are given out to virtually any celeb for doing at times nowt. I'm not knocking his achievement, hell I can't even swim, but how does this make a difference to the "empire"?
One of the reasons he raised the amount of money he did was he was a celeb, so he has a bigger audience to pool from and he should be applauded for this, but a knighthood?
I'm all for him getting every bit of congrats he receives but I have more time for the like of Rungeordierun who ran across America in 100 days, or closer to me Seb4CHUF who constantly raise awareness and money through some brutal challenges in the past 2 years and live with what they are raising funds for EVERY day.
Just a few random thoughts from me

DF33

bornagainbiker wrote:

I cannot believe some of the mealymouthed comments on here.

what he achieved was a fantastic undertaking. Having swam in competitions and trained into my mid teens I have an idea just how bloody knackering and mentally draining it is. How many of the whingers here have attempted more than 10 lengths of the local pool before giving up?!

Quite right Sir. Haven't swam in a p1ssy cess pit of a local swimming pool for years. So I forfeit my right to an opinion on this subject.

Mind you, last Sunday I swam in Easdale Tarn in the Lake District. Bloody freezing it was. Did an hours wild swim without canoe support or cameras.

Pity that doesn't count.

dilemna

I wonder what Matt Lucas got up to after Walliams dived in ............

Swimming the Thames would make you feel right down in the dumps.

Close encounters of the turd kind .

bearfraser

Good on him for swimming for 8 days in a cess pool (though i thought the Thames was supposed to be clean) and raising a million+ . But a knighthod WHY .The entire honours thing is a comlplete wastse of space or at least it is now ,It used to mean something, now all you have to be is some Paracitical Celeb who raises some of OUR
money for a good cause.

fast as fupp

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

i'm simply amazed that you dirty souths have to go for a shite in your river!

rolf_f

inkyfingers wrote:

That's your opinion, but if someone was prepared to pay you loads of money just to wheel out a few tired catchphrarses then are you honestly going to tell me you wouldn't do it? It really irks me when people say that such and such is overpaid, no, he is paid what his paymasters think he's worth. If 8 million people tune in to little britain on the BBC then they'd argue he's worth it. It's like football fans that moan that players are overpaid yet they continue to buy replica shirts, attend matches or pay for a sky sports subscription.

Yes - it is my opinion. It was my post so it would be odd if it wasn't my opinion

I probably would do much as David Walliams does if I had the opportunity but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If I did, I'd feel that I was preposterously overpaid so I'd want to do something worthwhile in return. And it is a plain fact that he is overpaid - he is paid more than his talents are worth. If David Walliams departed the TV never to return, someone else would bob into his shoes straight away and happily for less money and probably even be funnier. It really irks me when people say that if somebody is paid a certain amount, then by definition they are worth it - the logical implication of this is that if you are lowly paid, then that is all you deserve. Celebs are only worth it if you can't get the same for less - and sorry, David Walliams is nowhere near funny enough for that.

inkyfingers wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

PS Eddie Izzards marathons were far more impressive IMO!

To market these things the challenge has to be A: Hard - which swimming 140 miles most certainly is, whether or not it's harder than running a series of marathons is a bit of a moot point. B: It has to be unique, which once again this is.

Not sure why people are knocking him, when you compare his efforts to some of the more pathetic celebrity charity events - such as the epic sport relief bike ride last year where they each cyclist just a handful of miles a day or the kilamjaro climb which was basically celebrity let's walk up a hill with a load of poor people carrying all our stuff. Plus he gets my respect for being prepared to swim in the Thames - knowing what ends up in there I wouldn't go in there unless I was in a sealed divers suit!

I don't disagree with any of this (and I haven't knocked Walliams for anything other than not being very funny - and he has a long way to go before matching the heights of sheer "unfunny but doesn't know it" ness of Lenny Henry) - but personally I suspect the marathons are much harder; the sheer stress it is putting the body under has to be far greater than the swim. Besides, he was going with the current. If he'd gone upstream, now that would have been impressive! But, as I said, it was a good challenge.

Ben6899

fast as fupp wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Yes he has raised a stack of money but I can't stand the bloke. Hope he has the squits from one of my morning dumps.

i'm simply amazed that you dirty souths have to go for a shite in your river!

That was in the early 19th century. And it didn't really work out.